EcoVadis 2026: Your questions answered

As EcoVadis continues to evolve its methodology and raise the bar for sustainability performance, organisations worldwide are grappling with increasingly complex requirements. Following our recent EcoVadis 2026 webinar, we received numerous questions from participants navigating these changes. This article consolidates the most relevant queries and provides clear, actionable guidance to help you prepare for your next assessment.

What’s changing in 2026?

The 2026 methodology brings three key updates: (1) enhanced materiality flexibility allowing companies to opt out of non-material environmental topics (currently piloted in specific industries), (2) improved 360 Watch severity assessment incorporating stakeholder consensus factors, and (3) formal recognition of VSME reporting standards with differentiated scoring for basic versus comprehensive modules. Additionally, EcoVadis score thresholds for medals continue rising, the Silver threshold increased from 68 to 72 points between July 2025 and January 2026 alone. Read more about the 2026 changes, and learnings from last year in our article going over the webinar.

Here are your top questions answered, categorised based on the most relevant topics throughout the session.

Assessment scope & structure

If we report on group level, does the scoring become more rigorous/difficult compared to when we would report on entity level?

Yes, group-level assessments are generally more challenging. The primary reason is the Coverage indicator, which only activates for group-level assessments. Coverage measures how widely sustainability actions (certifications, training, processes) are deployed across your organisation. If only 20% of your subsidiaries hold an ISO certification, you’ll score lower on Coverage than if 80% do.

Additionally, consolidating documentation across multiple entities presents practical challenges. For smaller or medium-sized entities, Coverage may not activate, making entity-level assessments more achievable. Consider your operational reality: if sustainability is managed centrally, group assessment makes sense; if each entity operates independently, entity-level may be more strategic.

Regarding certification coverage, in a group assessment are all sites included? Also the commercial offices, or only the productive sites?

In a group assessment, scope typically includes all entities in your consolidated financial statements, both productive sites and commercial offices. However, for Coverage questions, you have flexibility to focus on operational sites. Small commercial offices with minimal impact can potentially be excluded if transparently documented and justified. The key is clearly defining your scope and ensuring consistency between what you declare and the evidence you provide. EcoVadis assesses primary activities, so for health and safety certifications, they’ll focus on operational rather than office-based locations.

If a parent company based in a country has a site abroad that is included in the consolidated financial statements, does it have to be included in the scope of our EcoVadis assessment? Is it possible to keep only the main site in the assessment?

You can define your assessment scope to include only one site (entity assessment) rather than the full group; however, conducting a group assessment will automatically include all legal entities under the group. These are determined by EcoVadis based on publicly available information, exclusion of sites is only possible in some instances (e.g., entity recently acquired or sold) and in consultation with EcoVadis. Key considerations when choosing between group versus entity assessment include customer requirements and availability of consolidated data at group level. You could also start with entity-level assessment and expand to group level in future cycles.

Approximately how many points are lost by reporting group level data at an entity level?

The impact varies significantly depending on whether group data is disaggregated at site level, clearly highlighting the KPI of the reporting entity. If data is only available as a consolidated KPI for the group level without specifying the entity’s results separately, you may see reduced scores under Reporting, potentially ranging from minor (a few points) to significant (10–15+ points). To minimise loss, provide group data alongside entity-specific breakdowns where possible and clearly communicate which data is entity-specific versus group-aggregated. The 2026 methodology places increased emphasis on data granularity, making this distinction more important.

Where can I get insights and be sure that all subsidiaries are considered from EcoVadis in our group assessment?

Clearly define your organisational scope in the questionnaire’s company information section, listing all entities in consolidated financials. Provide an organisational chart or subsidiary list with details (location, employees, activities). Your scorecard will indicate assessment scope on the first page once published. EcoVadis’s 360 Watch may also flag subsidiary-related news, confirming they’re tracked. For deeper verification, contact EcoVadis support or work with a consultant to review your corporate structure and documentation.

Can the possibility of being able to select the scope of assessment be considered greenwashing if a company decides to only include the locations that perform the best?

Selectively choosing only high-performing sites could potentially constitute greenwashing if it misrepresents overall sustainability performance. While you must declare your scope (visible on the scorecard), the medal itself doesn’t show these limitations. For this reason, group-level assessments include Coverage questions which determine to what extent an action (e.g., process, training, certification) is deployed across the group. The indicated percentage can then have either a negative or positive impact on the overall score.

Best practice: Ensure your scope is representative of operations and material impacts. Transparently communicate exclusions to customers. From 2026, EcoVadis emphasises scope transparency and materiality alignment. The reputational and regulatory risks of selective disclosure generally outweigh short-term scoring benefits.

Is it possible to change the scope of the assessment to an overarching group when a client has requested an EcoVadis rating on a sub-group?

Yes, but this requires coordination with both EcoVadis and your requesting client. Contact EcoVadis support to request a scope change, but first discuss with your client to confirm they’ll accept a group-level scorecard instead of the specific sub-group they requested. Some clients specifically want entity-level assessments for the entity they do business with. If approved, a group-level assessment could be beneficial as it’s shareable with multiple clients.

Reporting requirements & KPIs

For the KPIs for 100 points it says report covers at least 3 consecutive years. Is this in one document or will they take the previous submissions into account?

The three consecutive years of KPI data must be visible within documents submitted for your current assessment, in one document like your sustainability report. EcoVadis doesn’t automatically consider previous submissions, each EcoVadis assessment is evaluated on current evidence. Your 2026 assessment should include documentation showing trend data for at least three years (e.g., 2023–2025 data presented together). If necessary, submit multiple years’ reports together to demonstrate coverage, but having them in one consolidated document is an explicit requirement.

To clarify regarding KPIs, we currently create a KPI year-end summary spreadsheet to cover all locations and KPIs and submit as a single piece of evidence. As of 2026, max score would be 50/100 unless we include all these KPIs publicly in our annual sustainability report?

Yes, from 2026 EcoVadis emphasises public disclosure over private documentation. To achieve highest Reporting scores, KPIs increasingly need to be publicly available (sustainability report, website) rather than internal spreadsheets. Your spreadsheet still provides value, but scoring potential is limited. The 50/100 reference suggests mid-level performance without public disclosure. Consider publishing key material KPIs in your report or website sustainability section. This aligns with CSRD‘s transparency emphasis.

Please also consider the other reporting requirements necessary to achieve 75 or 100/100, including conducting a double materiality analysis, verifying sustainability data, and complying with a reporting standard.

Which best practice would you recommend for companies switching reporting frameworks, and hence having different KPI/metric definitions from one year to another?

Best practice: provide both continuity and transparency. During transition, report KPIs using both old and new definitions where feasible, explaining methodological changes and impacts. Include reconciliation tables showing how definitions changed. You don’t need a full three-year overlap, but at least one year of overlap data helps. EcoVadis increasingly values alignment with recognised frameworks (GRI, CSRD, ISSB), so transitions to these are viewed positively when transparently documented.

EcoVadis requires 67% of sustainability criteria covered (identified by EcoVadis), but if you base your report on the outcome of your materiality analysis and do not meet the 67%, how do they do the scoring?

From 2026, EcoVadis offers more flexibility to exclude non-material environmental topics. However, for active topics (based on sector, size, geography), coverage is still expected. If your materiality assessment deems topics non-material and you don’t report on them, you’ll likely score lower on Coverage. Providing robust materiality assessment documentation and clearly explaining your scope decisions helps, EcoVadis analysts may consider this context. Transparency about your materiality-based approach is valued even if it affects coverage scores.

Alignment with different reporting standards

Will EcoVadis consider CSRD reporting as a reporting standard like GRI?

Yes, absolutely. EcoVadis recognises ESRS (the CSRD reporting standards) as a formal reporting framework. From 2026 onwards, formal compliance matters more than just “referencing” frameworks. Companies reporting in accordance with ESRS will receive full points for this criterion, similar to GRI “in accordance with” reporting.

Did I understand correctly that a sustainability report can no longer be “reference to GRI or CSRD” to get points, but must now comply exactly with the requirements? Is “reference to” no longer sufficient?

Yes, this is a significant 2026 methodology change. Previously, “prepared with reference to GRI” language earned points even without full compliance. From 2026, EcoVadis requires more rigorous alignment—for GRI, this means “in accordance with” GRI Standards or substantial demonstrated use of indicators and principles. The same applies to CSRD/ESRS. This reflects increased scrutiny around greenwashing. Partial adoption still receives some credit, but highest scores require formal framework compliance.

The time window for the annual reassessment is not aligned with the needs of wave-one companies under provisions of the CSRD. How can we manage this?

This is a common challenge for Wave 1 CSRD companies. EcoVadis does offer flexibility: you can request scorecard validity extensions or postpone reassessment by contacting support with clear justification. Many companies strategically time their 2026 submission after CSRD report publication. Alternatively, submit with available information and update later, or prepare CSRD-aligned documentation specifically for EcoVadis before final CSRD publication. Contact EcoVadis support early to discuss your timeline constraints.

Regarding GRI reporting, is it better than IFRS and ESRS?

GRI isn’t necessarily “better” than IFRS or ESRS, they serve different purposes. GRI has an impact-focused, multi-stakeholder approach; IFRS is investor-focused on financial materiality; ESRS incorporates both through double materiality and is the required framework for companies that fall under CSRD scope. For EcoVadis, all three frameworks are recognised, but from 2026 onwards, formal compliance matters more than just “referencing” them. GRI remains excellent for comprehensive reporting without CSRD obligations and is particularly strong for social and governance aspects EcoVadis evaluates. Please note that reports must be “in accordance with GRI” — “in reference to GRI” will no longer score maximum points.

Can US-based companies report with VSME?

Yes, US companies can use the VSME reporting framework. Whilst developed by EFRAG for European SMEs, VSME principles are applicable regardless of geography. EcoVadis recognises VSME as legitimate structured sustainability disclosure. For US companies, VSME provides comprehensive ESG coverage whilst being less burdensome than full GRI or CSRD/ESRS. Main consideration: whether VSME meets your stakeholders’ expectations versus US-specific frameworks (SASB/IFRS Sustainability Standards). For EcoVadis purposes, VSME-aligned reporting demonstrates a systematic approach and will be viewed positively.

Does EcoVadis accept VSME for “mid-cap” companies (e.g., 750 FTE)?

Whilst VSME was designed for SMEs (typically under 250 employees), there’s no strict prohibition at 750 FTE, though you’re at the threshold where CSRD becomes mandatory and more comprehensive frameworks might be expected. EcoVadis will likely accept VSME-aligned reporting from 750-FTE companies as evidence of structured disclosure, but analysts might question why you’re using simplified standards rather than more comprehensive frameworks (like GRI) expected of mid-cap organisations. At your size, GRI “in accordance with” might better align with stakeholder expectations.

If you want to see strategies & best practices for VSME reporting, watch our session on-demand!

Will the UK SRS be accepted by EcoVadis as a reporting framework?

The UK Sustainability Reporting Standard (SRS) is expected to be recognised by EcoVadis once formally implemented. EcoVadis generally accepts internationally recognised frameworks, and UK SRS will be mandatory for many UK companies and aligned with ISSB (already recognised by EcoVadis). There may be a brief lag before EcoVadis formally updates methodology guidance to explicitly list UK SRS. In the interim, reference UK SRS and note ISSB alignment. Monitor EcoVadis’s 2026 methodology updates for official confirmation.

Does UNGC COP count as externally reported sustainability report? In accordance with GRI?

UN Global Compact Communication on Progress is recognised as external disclosure demonstrating UNGC commitment, and EcoVadis values it. Submitting a COP will grant companies points under the ‘Endorsement’ pillar. Whilst a COP alone typically doesn’t carry the same weight as comprehensive GRI reports, companies might be granted some points under the ‘Reporting’ pillar if COPs include relevant KPIs. If COP is your primary disclosure, make it comprehensive and data-rich with multi-year trends. Consider supplementing with additional documentation for stronger scoring. However, please note that it is not as strong as using formal reporting frameworks.

Does EcoVadis ask about EUDR compliance?

Yes, EcoVadis addresses EUDR compliance, with depth depending on your industry and supply chain risk. EUDR questions appear in Environment and Sustainable Procurement sections, particularly for companies dealing in covered commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, wood, derivatives). Questions cover deforestation policies, due diligence processes, traceability systems, and risk management. As EUDR enforcement begins, EcoVadis will increasingly weight compliance readiness. Document your due diligence system, supply chain mapping, risk assessments, and traceability systems.

Materiality & topic customisation

Are there EcoVadis requirements for carrying out a materiality analysis for it to be accepted by EcoVadis?

Yes, EcoVadis expects materiality assessments to follow recognised methodologies (GRI materiality process or CSRD double materiality). Key elements: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) systematic assessment process, (3) formal documentation, (4) governance approval, (5) comprehensive topic coverage. The assessment should evaluate both impact materiality (your effects on environment/society) and financial materiality (sustainability effects on business). Conclusions must be defensible with clear reasoning. Submit your full materiality assessment report with your questionnaire and reference it when requesting topic adjustments.

If a topic was switched off but your DMA said it was material, they will switch it back on for you?

Yes, this is part of EcoVadis’s 2026 materiality flexibility. If your double materiality assessment identifies a topic as material but EcoVadis has it switched off, you can request activation (and vice versa). Provide your materiality assessment documentation showing methodology and conclusions, ideally following CSRD double materiality or similar recognised approaches with stakeholder engagement. EcoVadis analysts review your justification and determine whether to adjust active topics. This means they can activate a topic based on the provided evidence. However, certain core topics fundamental to EcoVadis may not be switchable regardless of your assessment.

Curious to learn more about (Double) Materiality Assessments? Here‘s everything you need to know.

About the materiality customisation in August: We have foreseen to renew in September. Would you recommend to move forward and submit in August still?

This depends on readiness and risk tolerance. Submitting in August scores you under current 2026 methodology with 12-month validity. September onwards uses updated criteria. Consider: (1) current documentation readiness, (2) known August methodology changes and potential impacts, (3) business criticality of your score. Generally, if well-prepared and updates look more stringent, August submission could be advantageous. If you need more time for quality, then improvement may outweigh methodology changes. We can review specific changes once announced.

Certifications & audits

If you have ISOs for some high-risk sites but they are not all covered on the certificate, can you do internal audits with a 3rd party to provide evidence that the management system is being managed across the whole company?

Third-party verified internal audits for non-certified sites demonstrate strong management systems; however, EcoVadis wants to see both actions in place and scores them as separate elements. For group assessments, EcoVadis will score twice: once for having ISO at at least one entity (scored under ‘Certifications’) and the second time assessing the percentage of sites covered by an ISO (scored under ‘Coverage’). The higher the percentage coverage, the more points you will receive for the ‘Coverage’ indicator.

Ensure audits are credible: conducted by qualified external auditors, following ISO audit methodologies, producing formal audit reports. Document your audit programme showing schedule, scope, and coverage across non-certified sites. If ISO coverage is low, having third-party audits will score substantially better than no verification, though not quite as high as full certification.

Final thoughts

The evolving EcoVadis methodology reflects broader trends in sustainability reporting: increased transparency, rigorous verification, and alignment with regulatory frameworks like CSRD. Whilst these changes raise the bar, they also create opportunities for organisations to demonstrate genuine commitment to sustainability. The key is to approach EcoVadis not merely as a compliance exercise but as a strategic tool for continuous improvement.

As score thresholds continue rising and competition intensifies, organisations must invest in robust sustainability management systems, high-quality reporting processes, and transparent disclosure. Whether you’re navigating scope decisions, wrestling with reporting standards, or preparing for your first assessment, remember that EcoVadis support and specialist consultants are available to guide you through the process.

For organisations feeling overwhelmed by these requirements, consider this: sustainability maturity is a journey, not a destination. Start where you are, focus on material topics, and build incrementally. The companies that succeed in EcoVadis 2026 won’t necessarily be those with the most resources, but those with the clearest strategy and commitment to authentic sustainability progress.

Our experts are working on the upcoming EcoVadis guide, combining all of our learnings and detailed updates from EcoVadis into one, comprehensive source. Stay tuned!

Stronger together

Nexio Projects, a top sustainability consultancy, can be your go-to supporter in this journey, ensuring solid improvements in your next assessment. As the #1 partner of EcoVadis, we help with identifying gaps in your management system, reviewing your assessment and getting you ready for the next rating. Our experts have completed more than 400 EcoVadis assessments, and are up to date with changes and challenges unique to your organisation.

If you want to seek further support, get in contact now!

Additionally, subscribe to our newsletter for more EcoVadis updates.